This is how the human race will destroy itself:

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Pinder- that is well said- where I come in is this:

In large part I can chose which businesses I would like to support- however I cannot chose how much taxes I HAVE to pay. I think the health care law in particular creates a terrible HORRIBLE precedent with untold ramifications down the road by telling American citizens BY LAW THEY HAVE TO PURCHASE SOMETHING- in this case Health Insurance. I don't like where that is headed, and if it was up to me anyone who voted for that law should be arrested for treason. That is not hyperbole. I mean that wholeheartedly- the same goes for the S.C. justices that upheld the law.

If we really want to get into it, we should start a "Monsanto non- appreciation" thread.

But ya know: this a symptom of a predatory capitalist society. Since we've allowed health care to be a commodity just like Silly Putty or Summer In Paradise: we simply can't afford to have great swaths of our citizens dropping dead in the street or funneling through the emergency room and morgues, because, you know, all that stuff costs money.... It will be cheaper in the long run if even the poorest citizen has access to health care.... Like I've said before: it all involves us personally in one way or another... If your son starts dating a girl and you've voted planned parenthood out of existence and neither your kid or the girl have the nerve to go buy condoms from the corner store where the kindly Pastor Jones might be shopping: ..... just think of what can happen..... We can't JUST think with our wallets. Well, we can but we're just fooling ourselves.... So, what's the solution? Get rid of Government? OK, so how would that work? We need more ideas and less bitching..... And one more thing: there is no damn danger at all of you guys losing your ability to buy whatever you want. That part of capitalism is forever safe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/19/decline-fall-american-society-unravelled

[Mahalo]

I believe strongly in HSA's and using insurance only for major emergencies- I don't use my car insurance to pay for my oil change. I have an HSA and I really love it. I just cut my hand and am able to use that money to pay for the costs. Insurance companies, medicaid/care, and lawsuits all jack up the price of health care- not that health care has become a "commodity". I would rather have choice and freedom than gov't provided care. WHY DO PEOPLE WANT TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME AND TELL ME TO JUST TAKE THE SINGLE PAYER PLAN AND SHUT UP?? I live and work with these people- That is a real danger, Pinder. That's not cool. I believe strongly in leaving health care policies to the states. I may not like it, but constitutionally this make more sense....and cents. Doesn't medicaid cover the "poorest of citizens"? We don't have a health care problem , we have a health care cost problem. The reality that the costs are inflated way too high. It is not uncommon for people to compare the USA health care to other western countries- a debate I am always prepared for. I find comparing, say, the health care of Sweden, to the USA- Sweden has a population only slightly larger than NYC, to be misguided. Many times when I debate the health care thing people mention countries like Denmark, or France, or England, and I have to remind them that these countries are much smaller than the USA, and often smaller than many states. At the end of the day, if I need a catscan I would much rather be in the USA than in any other country in the world- period.

I will get into this more at another time- however, that premise you gave about planned parenthood is wrong, IMO. Planned Parenthood isn't about condoms, it's about abortions- the quotas they have to fill and the ways they spend our tax money- not on condoms but all the bs that I'm well enough prepared to get into. I don't know why any tax dollars go to fund abortions outside of extreme situations, period. I'm an adopted child and am so thankful that my mother didn't abort me. How many European countries that advocates of single payer love to mention have banned or severely limited abortions after the 1st tri-mester? .. btw, WHAT DID WE DO BEFORE PP? WE GOT BY SOMEHOW< RIGHT? Goodness gracious, WHERE DOES IT END WITH WHERE OUR MONEY IS TAKEN FROM US!!! ANSWER THAT!! Where are your ideas?

[Mahalo]

BTW, it's hard not to get passionate, or to even post- this politics on the internet crap is a real waste of time more often than not. Forgive me if I come across as jerk, it is not intended.

[hypehat]

rockandroll does know what he's talking about, unlike the libertarian crew here. But then you all love big business - TRBB, for example, thinks the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be repealed because it gives minorities a legal recourse against business owners who discriminate against them. Oh no, poor business.

I know it might be a bit much to ask (statists don't really read, do they?), but if you're going to claim to know my position you might actually take it upon yourself to know my position before claiming such. My position on repeating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is based on the fact that private property owners (just like everyone else) have the right to freedom of association. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forces people to go against their own judgment in a situation (denying employment or service for whatever reason) that does not result in a victim.

I know you guys in Britain love living under John Bull's tyranny, but please remember that not everyone is as brainwashed.

Er, this justification of your previously stated position on the board that people should not be able to have legal recourse against businesses who discriminate against them (you mentioned it on the election thread last year, I think, and it has stuck with me as a mark of your character) is.... well, it's not very liberal. Either my sense of the word or yours.

Your solution, I think, was that if someone was discriminated against by a business they did not need the law to fight against such discrimination. A simple boycott would suffice. Have I got you down right?

You're not for the 'freedom of the individual', in this case - you're for the freedom of the business, a faceless, unaccountable identity, to deny service to anyone on, well, any ground - from understandable things like being aggressive to staff, sure, but also skin colour, sexual orientation, appearance, political views - you support the right of business to reject service to any individual on any ground because it's private property? You're sure about that?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I believe strongly in HSA's and using insurance only for major emergencies- I don't use my car insurance to pay for my oil change. I have an HSA and I really love it. I just cut my hand and am able to use that money to pay for the costs. Insurance companies, medicaid/care, and lawsuits all jack up the price of health care- not that health care has become a "commodity". I would rather have choice and freedom than gov't provided care. WHY DO PEOPLE WANT TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME AND TELL ME TO JUST TAKE THE SINGLE PAYER PLAN AND SHUT UP?? I live and work with these people- That is a real danger, Pinder. That's not cool. I believe strongly in leaving health care policies to the states. I may not like it, but constitutionally this make more sense....and cents. Doesn't medicaid cover the "poorest of citizens"? We don't have a health care problem , we have a health care cost problem. The reality that the costs are inflated way too high. It is not uncommon for people to compare the USA health care to other western countries- a debate I am always prepared for. I find comparing, say, the health care of Sweden, to the USA- Sweden has a population only slightly larger than NYC, to be misguided. Many times when I debate the health care thing people mention countries like Denmark, or France, or England, and I have to remind them that these countries are much smaller than the USA, and often smaller than many states. At the end of the day, if I need a catscan I would much rather be in the USA than in any other country in the world- period.

I will get into this more at another time- however, that premise you gave about planned parenthood is wrong, IMO. Planned Parenthood isn't about condoms, it's about abortions- the quotas they have to fill and the ways they spend our tax money- not on condoms but all the bs that I'm well enough prepared to get into. I don't know why any tax dollars go to fund abortions outside of extreme situations, period. I'm an adopted child and am so thankful that my mother didn't abort me. How many European countries that advocates of single payer love to mention have banned or severely limited abortions after the 1st tri-mester? .. btw, WHAT DID WE DO BEFORE PP? WE GOT BY SOMEHOW< RIGHT? Goodness gracious, WHERE DOES IT END WITH WHERE OUR MONEY IS TAKEN FROM US!!! ANSWER THAT!! Where are your ideas?

Never ever apologize for being passionate about these things! I highly respect your opinions even when we disagree. It is nearly impossible to be "correct" about such things right down the line because we all come at them from our different/unique situations etc etc.... I didn't mean what I said about PP as a summing up of what they are: just an example of something they offer. Most every woman I've ever dated or know get their condoms, (thus preventing abortions: when used properly), pregnancy tests, HIV testing, etc at PP. If we somehow have a problem with women doing such things, that is an, er, separate issue. I am no fan of abortions myself. However, it's all how you look at things. How is sending a young soldier off to die for lies and bullshit any more honorable that a women getting an abortion? But we simply can't create a world where bad things don't happen and we have to live with what we can't control. If one wishes to try and control/prevent women from having abortions: good luck. You'll have to eliminate wire coat hangers as well as abortion clinics.... I think you are probably right about health care being better off in the state's hands. Then again, I'm a pinko who thinks it should be free in the first place to all citizens. It's not hard to envision a world where such is the case. All you have to do is have the will and not be scared you won't be free to buy stuff.... or whatever.

..... I also follow your logic of only using insurance for major emergencies. I bruised some ribs a couple years back and just went to a local walk-in place and paid up front. Much easier and nicer WHEN you have the money. So why not freedom of choice health-care wise if you can afford it and free health care for those who can't? Kind of like it is, but it should be be allowed to get worse? And why no co-op style housing (not government ran) for those who can't afford increasingly expensive rents without it having to be in some ghetto somewhere? What's wrong with that? It's not going to prevent anyone else from renting in the usual way? There are oceans of possibilities/ideas.

As for OUR MONEY BEING TAKEN? ..... Live with it. It sucks but they'll take our money no matter what we cut or who we vote for. They will take it and keep taking it and taking it and taking it.....

[Chocolate Shake Man]

You live in a country where harder battles have been fought than whether or not you pay taxes for health care. If you don't like it, you can do something about it. If you can't do anything about it, then the problem is not taxes but a dysfunctional democratic system, which is also in your power to change. But it ain't gonna happen by "voting with your wallet."

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

You live in a country where harder battles have been fought than whether or not you pay taxes for health care. If you don't like it, you can do something about it. If you can't do anything about it, then the problem is not taxes but a dysfunctional democratic system, which is also in your power to change. But it ain't gonna happen by "voting with your wallet."

Exactly..... You take a look back over the history of this country and it is quite shameful how many folks given no damn about anything other than the less fortunate among us getting a pittance of their tax pennies....

[Jason]

rockandroll does know what he's talking about, unlike the libertarian crew here. But then you all love big business - TRBB, for example, thinks the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be repealed because it gives minorities a legal recourse against business owners who discriminate against them. Oh no, poor business.

I know it might be a bit much to ask (statists don't really read, do they?), but if you're going to claim to know my position you might actually take it upon yourself to know my position before claiming such. My position on repeating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is based on the fact that private property owners (just like everyone else) have the right to freedom of association. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forces people to go against their own judgment in a situation (denying employment or service for whatever reason) that does not result in a victim.

I know you guys in Britain love living under John Bull's tyranny, but please remember that not everyone is as brainwashed.

Er, this justification of your previously stated position on the board that people should not be able to have legal recourse against businesses who discriminate against them (you mentioned it on the election thread last year, I think, and it has stuck with me as a mark of your character) is.... well, it's not very liberal. Either my sense of the word or yours.

Your solution, I think, was that if someone was discriminated against by a business they did not need the law to fight against such discrimination. A simple boycott would suffice. Have I got you down right?

You're not for the 'freedom of the individual', in this case - you're for the freedom of the business, a faceless, unaccountable identity, to deny service to anyone on, well, any ground - from understandable things like being aggressive to staff, sure, but also skin colour, sexual orientation, appearance, political views - you support the right of business to reject service to any individual on any ground because it's private property? You're sure about that?

l am absolutely for the freedom of the individual. Businesses don't run themselves; they're run by people. Those people have the right to freedom of association, too. Same as anyone else. And this view is consistent with individual liberty, since the wronged individual will associate with those who want the business.

[Dunderhead]

And Meister, read Meister too

And what's going to happen? He'll close the book when finished and suddenly think just like you? I doubt that's how it works.... Reading the Bible didn't make me a Christian nor did "Christianity" (Nietzsche) make me an Atheist.... We are who we are and we will gravitate toward and prop up works of art and information that confirm our self image...... which is exactly the way it ISN'T supposed to work. But we are merely human.

Felix! How many times have I told you not to drink from the pitcher!

[Dunderhead]

And Meister, read Meister too

And what's going to happen? He'll close the book when finished and suddenly think just like you? I doubt that's how it works.... Reading the Bible didn't make me a Christian nor did "Christianity" (Nietzsche) make me an Atheist.... We are who we are and we will gravitate toward and prop up works of art and information that confirm our self image...... which is exactly the way it ISN'T supposed to work. But we are merely human.

This is my #1 all time favorite post here. The dismissive tone combined with the accidental recapitulation of major thematic strains from the novel make it downright delectable.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

l am absolutely for the freedom of the individual. Businesses don't run themselves; they're run by people.

Hammers also only become useful when they are used by people but this required association with individuals does not mean that hammers should get any rights that humans get.

[Mendota Heights]

A hammer is an object, a business is not. A business is an organization where humans sell and buy goods and services.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

A hammer is an object, a business is not. A business is an organization where humans sell and buy goods and services.

In other words, it's also an object.

[Mendota Heights]

A hammer is inanimate object. Humans are alive. Humans perform actions, hammers can not do jack.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

A hammer is inanimate object. Humans are alive. Humans perform actions, hammers can not do jack.

I agree. And a corporation isn't a human.

[Jason]

No one has claimed a corporation is a person.

[Mendota Heights]

A hammer is inanimate object. Humans are alive. Humans perform actions, hammers can not do jack.

I agree. And a corporation isn't a human.

I agree. A business is specific human activities pertaining to producing or selling goods and services.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

No one has claimed a corporation is a person.

You're suggesting that they should have the same rights as people. How is that different?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I agree. A business is specific human activities pertaining to producing or selling goods and services.

A business is not an activity, which is why it is a noun in this case, not a verb.

[Jason]

No one has claimed a corporation is a person.

You're suggesting that they should have the same rights as people. How is that different?

Allow me to quote my statement.

Businesses don't run themselves; they're run by people. Those people have the right to freedom of association, too.

If a person runs a business then, as the property owner, that person has a right to freedom of association for his or her business. That is not the "corporations are people" bullshit and you know it.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

No one has claimed a corporation is a person.

You're suggesting that they should have the same rights as people. How is that different?

Allow me to quote my statement.

Businesses don't run themselves; they're run by people. Those people have the right to freedom of association, too.

If a person runs a business then, as the property owner, that person has a right to freedom of association for his or her business. That is not the "corporations are people" bullshit and you know it.

This is becoming quite circular. This is why I evoked the hammer example. You are also radically mischaracterizing the entrenched right to freedom of association, which in US history was evoked mostly to protect people's rights to join trade unions, not to deny people service based on specious reasoning.

[Jason]

That's clearly not how the U.S. founders saw it.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

That's clearly not how the U.S. founders saw it.

The founders didn't entrench freedom of association. That didn't enter the constitution until 1958, at which point the term had been long associated with trade unionism.

[Jason]

Not to sound like Mr. Constitution or anything, but the First Amendment provides for freedom of association.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Not to sound like Mr. Constitution or anything, but the First Amendment provides for freedom of association.

Again, that was only recognized in 1958. The first amendment doesn't actually say anything about freedom of association.